Do Democrats have a recruiting issue at the Presidential level (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:53:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2024 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, GeorgiaModerate, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  Do Democrats have a recruiting issue at the Presidential level (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Do Democrats have a recruiting issue at the Presidential level  (Read 765 times)
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


« on: February 23, 2021, 02:00:21 PM »

When we look at all the possible GOP nominees for 2024, Ron DeSantis, Hawley, and Trump can all possible. Only Cruz and Haley I have doubts he can win

But I'm pretty sure most Democrats not named Biden would lose. Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Beto, and Cuomo would all lose. Only Julian Castro might do well.

Why do Democrats seem to have a weaker bench compared to Republicans?

Is it because Democrats tend to run more diverse candidates? Perhaps that Democrats seem to have a bigger tent and its hard to find one person who can appeal to progressives, older African Americans, and moderate suburban voters.

I think that Democrats have failed to win senate and state races in the Midwest since 2010, so that prevents future presidential candidates that could win.

Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2021, 10:54:03 AM »

No, we just allow the GOP propaganda wing set the narrative around policy and that stunts the success of genuinely good candidates because they're painted into a corner of either being too "socialist" or too "elitist" (or both somehow) and so the electorate feels the need to put up the safest candidates in order to win. We ought to cut through the bullsh**t and start playing their game instead of rolling over and accepting it.
While I agree the GOP sets the narrative most of time, the 2020 field of Democrats were praised for being diverse, but most would have been weak in the general
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2021, 10:56:13 AM »

Bernie Sanders might win if he runs in 2024



The Gen X crop of Democrats does seem to be rather small and unimpressive relative to their elders and newcomers, some of whom might be ready for a run by 2024. I wonder if the seniority system in the House caucus/gerontocracy has contributed to the relative lack of talent in the middle.
The Gen X crop is weak because they started their careers in the Obama era. The opposition,  GOP, were getting all the media attention from 2010-2018

Also, the lack of media attention has hurt canidates running in MI and OH
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2021, 11:02:34 AM »

Democrats do have a very old caucus. Sometimes as Democrats we do put invisible barriers on potential candidates by focusing so much on experience, statewide officials, location, and national profile that we limit the field to about 4 or 5 people. 
Eh, I kinda disagree

Look at the 2020 field. Only 4/5 people were really viable but the party insisted on having 20 people debates for fairness. To allow anyone to ''catch fire" when we were just wasting time.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2021, 11:07:34 AM »

I think OP is talking more about an issue of "candidate quality" than "recruiting". In other words, the issue isn't that good candidates don't want to run, but that there aren't any good candidates.

Anyway, to the actual question, I'm skeptical. While I think that candidate quality is very much a real thing, discussion of it almost always involve a lot of circular reasoning and subjective opinions (often revolving around name recognition or only taking into account the most recent election). I think the Dems do have some pretty decent potential candidates, starting with Kamala Harris, but I'd also throw in Cory Booker and, while he might have to do some courting of the party's left wing, Buttigieg. Republicans also have some candidates who look pretty good on paper (e.g. Haley) but the 2024 Republican candidate will likely have a tough time appealing to both the Trumpian base and the broader electorate.
Thank you, you worded my question better than I did!

The reason I think the Democratic bench is fairly weak is because just about every "star" of the party and their grandmother ran in the 2020 primary and just about all of them landed on their face

Harris, Booker, Beto, Bullock, Ryan, etc all went no where. Sure, their respected lanes were taken by Biden and Sanders. Sure, these are clearly big names but both were weak. Hence Oct 2019 when Warren overtook Sanders. And Warren was a top tier candiate since 2012 so she didn't need to " catch fire"

The only candidates that didn't humiliate himself was Buttigieg. But his base didn't really exist outside Iowa, New Hampshire, and MSNBC. Andrew Yang won the internet war, but didn't crack 1% of votes in real life.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2021, 11:09:21 AM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.

Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2021, 11:51:31 AM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



I agree that the party prioritized the Presidential races far too much during the Obama years, but I also think there's a more nuanced side to this. Whitmer and Abrams were both important political figures in Michigan and Georgia, respectively, long before 2018 and spent a long time building up trust and goodwill with both voters and the political institutions in their states, and I'd say it's more a mix of coincidence, good timing, and effective planning that they made their marks in what happened to be a great year for the party electorally.
Why don't more Democrats do that than?
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2021, 12:24:42 PM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



Well, in fairness, in your original post for the Republicans you mentioned:

Trump--the former president
Hawley--a guy many don't know
DeSantis--who only really appeared in 2018

I'm just failing to see the argument.
It seems to the consensus on this forum that most big republican names can win in 2024 (Trump, Cruz, Hawley, DeSantis) but most Democrats are more likely to lose than win

My question is, why do GOP seem to have a stronger bench compared to Democrats? Unless your name is Obama/Biden, they all seem to have serious electanlity issues. While a lot has to do with Republican propaganda, it doesn't mean they dont have serious flaws
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2021, 01:04:09 PM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



Well, in fairness, in your original post for the Republicans you mentioned:

Trump--the former president
Hawley--a guy many don't know
DeSantis--who only really appeared in 2018

I'm just failing to see the argument.
It seems to the consensus on this forum that most big republican names can win in 2024 (Trump, Cruz, Hawley, DeSantis) but most Democrats are more likely to lose than win

My question is, why do GOP seem to have a stronger bench compared to Democrats? Unless your name is Obama/Biden, they all seem to have serious electanlity issues. While a lot has to do with Republican propaganda, it doesn't mean they dont have serious flaws

I would disagree with that supposed consensus, but I won't belabor that point.

Even if true, though, the consensus of a forum filled with (often wrong) amateur pundits/political geeks is hardly representative of the average American voter.

I'm just not sure how you can keep bringing up "electability issues" for certain Democratic candidates while ignoring those of the Republican candidates. Additionally, how is it an issue that Whitmer and Abrams only "came on the scene" in 2018, but it's not an issue that DeSantis only came on in 2018 as well.

The reality is that if we objectively extend your argument all the way out the only electable candidate for the GOP is Trump and Biden for the Dems.
I don't think most Democrats are electable. I supported Sanders and Warren in the primaries and in hindsight, they were not electable

Right now, I think the only Democrats who are electable are Obama, Biden, Julian Castro, and Sherrod Brown. Maybe Beto if he becomes Gov of Texas in 2022 and isn't so naive anymore

For Republicans, I think Trump, Don Jr, Rubio, Cruz, Scott, Hawley, Pence, and DeSantitis are electable. (Pence only if Trump endorses him)

That's more Republicans than Democrats
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 12 queries.